* * nO^ 


♦ 


^ 




: ' : M. 


^Jq - 


■^ 


o< 








°x> 




Jl • 




> * o H 


•^ 


* ° > 



























^^ ^ ■ 

~V » o *?* 



ADAMS GIBfl^H 



ANGLO-SAXON 
SOLIDARITY 



ANGLO-SAXON 
SOLIDARITY 



I 



BY 
Herbert Adams Gibbons 



THE CENTURY CO. 
MDCCCCXXI 



COPYRIGHT 1920 BY 
THE CENTURY CO 



.Gr& 



REPRINTED FROM 

THE Christmas Century 1920 



Gift 
Author 
MAR 



ANGLO-SAXON 
SOLIDARITY 

By Herbert Adams Gibbons 

NONE denies that the world is 
askew. Ships of state are 
pilotless and rudderless, riding 
God knows where. In every country 
internal economic and social conditions 
are so upset that forecasts of the 
morrow seem futile. And yet inter- 
national political relationships depend 
upon these internal conditions more 
intimately and more wholly than ever 
before in history. Statesmen may still 
be sitting at the diplomatic chess- 
board, making moves in accordance 
with the old rules of the game. But 
each realizes that shaping the foreign 
policy of his nation is no longer inde- 
pendent of or divorced from home 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

policies and problems. Things have 
changed. The old order upon which 
one could count in directing foreign 
affairs has given place to new and un- 
certain values. Just what the changes 
are, whether for good or bad, whether 
permanent or temporary, and how we 
are to adjust ourselves to them and 
take advantage of them or combat 
them, as the case may be, on all this 
we read little that is constructive. 
Prophets are alarmists, and critics 
keep telling us what we know, that our 
statesmen are making a mess of things 
internationally and that we are badly 
off internally because legislators and 
executives are passive in the face of 
high prices and social unrest. 

Dear me ! do we need to be taught 
that our house is not in order by hav- 
ing it, figuratively at least, pulled down 
around our ears ? Politicians and pro- 
fessors and publicists must call a halt 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

on their flood of complaint and denun- 
ciation and warning. The role of Cas- 
sandra may have been necessary to get 
people to pay attention, but when the 
public begins to say, "Well, what of 
it?" tirades must be changed to pro- 
grams, if the piercing through the 
armor-plate of indifference is to ac- 
complish any good result. "You 
writers on political and economic 
affairs give me the willies," said a bluff 
business man to me the other day. 
"If I do not stop reading you, I'll gtt 
to thinking in circles." 

Many who see the danger-signal try 
to heed it by shifting from fault-find- 
ing to rose-hued platitudes. We have 
seen this in the recent political cam i 
paign. When managers and orators 
felt that public opinion was growing 
restive under constant criticism and 
impatient of overdoses of "the world 
is going to the bow-wows," the strident 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

notes gave way to a grand diapason 
of "All's well !" Everything had been 
and would again be lovely in these 
United States, once the disturbing ele- 
ment of the opposing political party 
was snowed under by the avalanche of 
voters saving the republic. 

In a political campaign demagogic 
methods may be excusable. After all, 
the public has the votes, and must be 
handled with due regard for the laws 
of mob psychology. But when we see 
the same methods applied to the pre- 
sentation of a question of permanent 
interest and importance, and applied 
by men who both know better and 
have not the defense of electoral anx- 
iety and expediency, it is time to pro- 
test. As an Anglo-Saxon American, 
whose deepest interest is in the soli- 
darity of the English-speaking world, 
I want to raise my voice against the 
tactless and platitudinous type of arti- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

cle and speech one reads and hears 
everywhere in connection with the Pil- 
grim tercentenary. In my childhood, 
when the kitchen happened to run out 
of cereals or milk, the cook used to 
give us a dish of bread or flour and 
water with a liberal sprinkling of 
sugar to disguise its origin. To make 
children take "pap," everything de- 
pends upon the sugar. The ingredi- 
ents and their cooking do not enter in. 
I would not do all tercentenary 
orators the injustice of imputing to 
them paucity of ideas. For the 
cleverest of writers and preachers are 
among the most platitudinous when 
they touch the subject of our relations 
with Great Britain. Why do they go 
no further than extolling Puritan stock 
and our inheritance from the mother 
country and declaring that no sinister 
influences disturb the complete under- 
standing that exists between those to 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

whom blood is thicker than water? 
Article after article, speech after 
speech, toast after toast, have I read 
or sat through, and failed to get any 
idea other than that it was reprehensi- 
ble and "pro-German" to criticize 
Great Britain, that the Irish were akin 
to the Bolshevists, and that the bonds 
uniting the two great nations of the 
Anglo-Saxon world were imperishable. 
Our British hosts are assured that his- 
tory text-books have been responsible 
for much of our misunderstanding of 
the British, and that when we have 
remedied the way the War of Inde- 
pendence and the War of 1812 and the 
British attitude in the Civil War were 
presented to American children, a de- 
sire to twist the lion's tail will remain 
in this country only among Germans 
and Irish. And we shall substitute 
"Over There" as our national anthem 
for "The Star-Spangled Banner," 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

whose origin is, like the Fourth of 
July, extremely embarrassing for 
Anglo-American relations. And no 
matter what war may arise, together 
shall we stand, as we did in France. 
So on ad nauseam. 

We must not be uncharitable in 
passing judgment on tercentenary ora- 
tors. With British hosts in the audi- 
ence and at the table, and considering 
the occasion, a graceful eulogy is the 
order of the day. Still, it is possible 
to combine constructive thinking with 
complimentary references to past and 
present, especially when we consider 
that tercentenary celebrations draw 
thoughtful, earnest people, who do not 
have to be treated like a movie audi- 
ence or a campaign gathering. But so 
Strongly are we under the influence of 
the propaganda of the recent war that 
our tongues cleave to the roof of the 
mouth when any thought comes into 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

our head that, if uttered, might be 
interpreted as criticizing a British 
foreign or domestic policy or suggest- 
ing that Anglo-American relations 
need careful guiding and nursing. 
Still under the spell of the war, our 
tercentenary utterances are "p a P>" un- 
interesting, tiresome, and not contribu- 
ting, as they ought to do, something 
new to the great problem of Anglo- 
Saxon solidarity. 

We might dismiss the tercentenary 
disappointment with a simple expres- 
sion of regret over the great oppor- 
tunity missed, were it not for the 
strong feeling that the loving-cup and 
patting-ourselves-mutually-on-the-back 
performances are positively harmful 
to Anglo-Saxon solidarity. They have 
the effect of a soporific to American 
believers in Anglo-Saxon solidarity 
and of a stimulant to the enemies 
among Americans of friendship with 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Great Britain. The man who attends 
Pilgrim dinners and celebrations goes 
home with the comfortable feeling that 
Anglo-Saxon solidarity is stronger 
than ever. It is a physical reaction 
from the food and lights and flowers 
and music and women, not a mental re- 
action from the speakers. Satisfied 
and reassured, the tercentenary cele- 
brant thinks he has done all that is 
necessary to maintain and strengthen 
the bonds of friendship and good 
understanding between the English- 
speaking nations. The sugar is to his 
taste. The German-American who 
reads the reports of the speeches and 
toasts in the newspapers finds his in- 
stinctive antipathy to Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity confirmed by the tercente- 
nary orator's foolish and distorted con- 
ception of it. There is no sugar on 
the "pap" for him. As for the Irish- 
man, he sees redder than ever when he 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

reads of tercentenary orators lauding 
Puritans for exiling themselves and 
later fighting England for freedom's 
sake and denouncing the Irish for as- 
piring to freedom. 

Yes, I know the American of Scotch 
or English descent is likely to say that 
this is an Anglo-Saxon country, and 
that the Germans and Irishmen and 
other Europeans did not have to come 
here. When they did come, it was up 
to them to forget old ties and become 
assimilated with us. We have the 
right to justify close ties with Great 
Britain on the ground of "blood is 
thicker than water," but they have not 
that right in regard to their countries 
of origin. In 1914 this contention was 
put squarely before Americans of 
European origin. We forget now that 
it was never admitted by them, and 
that the remarkable union of the 
American nation, after we went into 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

the war, did not mean, among Ameri- 
cans of other than Anglo-Saxon 
origin, the abandonment of affection 
for, of pride in, their own ancestors. 
They refuse to accept the brand of 
hyphenate, arguing that, until the 
country of origin became the enemy of 
the United States, they had as much 
right to feel sympathetic toward it and 
even help its cause as did the Ameri- 
cans of Anglo-Saxon origin to sympa- 
thize with and help Great Britain. 
Now that the war is over, these non- 
Anglo-Saxons say to us, "If in your 
tercentenary celebrations you insist on 
blood relationship, do not speak for the 
United States. We resent that and 
deny your right. Speak only for your 
own element in the American popu- 
lation." 

We Anglo-Saxons cannot expect to 
denounce Ireland and even Germany 
and affirm our affection for and cham- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

pionship of England on the ground of 
blood relationship, as is being done in 
almost every tercentenary celebration, 
and expect our right to speak for the 
United States not to be contested. 
Unfortunately, this is not "our coun- 
try." The United States, from the 
beginning, contained elements without 
a drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in their 
veins, and Germans, Irishmen, and 
Hollanders fought in the Revolution- 
ary War. Throughout the nineteenth 
century the United States relied for 
her growth and expansion upon Euro- 
pean immigration, and the large part 
of the Irish and German elements 
came to this country before the Civil 
War. The United States is not our 
(Anglo-Saxon) country either because 
of the great preponderance of people 
of our unmixed blood or because the 
Anglo-Saxon element founded it ex- 
clusively and made it what it is. The 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

greatness of the United States in the 
third decade of the twentieth century 
is due to the combined aid of several 
different elements of her population, 
and it is certain that we could not have 
dispensed with either the German or 
the Irish element. And these elements 
are so numerous and so powerful in 
wealth and political influence that it is 
inexpedient — to use a mild word — to 
ignore or affront them in our tercente- 
nary writing and speaking. It does 
not help the cause of Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity for a tercentenary orator to 
denounce the German-Americans and 
the Irish-Americans. Quite the con- 
trary. Thoughtless speakers who in- 
dulge in such diatribes and enthusiastic 
listeners who beam approval are dig- 
ging the grave and assisting at the 
interment of Anglo-Saxon solidarity. 
On a Sunday morning in January, 
1915, I went to service at an Anglican 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

church in Cairo. After the prayers 
for the king and the royal family, the 
minister prayed for the President of 
the United States. I knew, of course, 
that this beautiful and graceful cus- 
tom holds in many Anglican chapels 
on the Continent which American 
tourists attend, and I suppose it was 
introduced in Cairo for the same 
reason. But in wartime, when we 
were neutral and when there were no 
tourists in Cairo, the prayer touched 
me deeply. It was an evidence of the 
close relationship between my country 
and Great Britain, closer than between 
Great Britain and her allies. I sat 
through a dull sermon, thinking of 
what a privilege it was for an Ameri- 
can to share in the advantages of the 
unique position of the British Empire. 
Travel where I would in the world, I 
could use my own language and attend 
my own church and hear my country 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

remembered in prayer. Common lan- 
guage and common faith, common 
laws and customs and common ideals 
— does the untraveled American ap- 
preciate the wealth of his Anglo-Saxon 
heritage and the vast privileges it con- 
fers upon him? 

But on another American corre- 
spondent who was not of Anglo-Saxon 
origin this incident made no impres- 
sion, and he did not follow me in priz- 
ing the heritage. "Language is a 
lucky convenience," he admitted, "but 
the English are foreigners to me. I 
feel nothing in common with them, 
nothing at all." He went on to say 
that he regarded the British as a more 
dangerous enemy than the Germans, 
and that our next war would be with 
them. My friend was a high-minded 
and intelligent American who had been 
to school in England and also in 
France. In temperament he was more 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

emotional than I; he loved music and 
architecture and handled carpets rever- 
ently. But his American blood — three 
or four generations — gave him no feel- 
ing of kinship with the English. I 
realized, when it came to the test of 
liking for a European country, that 
his sympathies were instinctively with 
Germany, while mine were as instinc- 
tively with England. Why? The 
difference in our blood and background 
of tradition. Later this correspondent 
rendered splendid service in the A. 
E. F. But he was fighting for the 
United States alone, and more than 
once told me that he would do every- 
thing in his power, after the war, to 
keep the United States from "falling 
in the orbit," as he put it, of the 
British Empire. 

It will do us no good to discount the 
importance of our compatriots who are 
not of Anglo-Saxon blood. If we 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

want to make Anglo-Saxon solidarity 
a national policy instead of a group 
cult, we shall have to find an appeal to 
the American public different from 
that of the orators and writers who 
speak in these days of our ancestors, 
our common blood, our precious 
Anglo-Saxon heritage. Nor is the 
superiority of Anglo-Saxon culture an 
argument that impresses many outside 
of our group. It smacks too much of a 
discredited political system that sought 
to replace or dominate other cultures 
by the Kulture of the Uebermensch. 
Some of the tercentenary orators come 
dangerously near plagiarizing the ex- 
Kaiser. 

Culture is a vague word. If it 
means traditions and customs and 
mental habits as embodied in our 
literature and preserved in our family 
life, we shall find many other Ameri- 
can elements than the German un- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

willing to abandon for our culture 
what they brought here from the Old 
World. Thousands of nourishing 
communities exist in the United 
States, nurseries of splendid Ameri- 
cans, where the new generation is be- 
ing brought up with traditions and 
customs and mental habits very differ- 
ent from those of Anglo-Saxons. 
From Scandinavians to Italians, ele- 
ments of continental European origin 
are not giving up their culture for 
Anglo-Saxon culture. So strong are 
atavism, the home circle, and the 
church that our public-school system 
does not Anglo-Saxonize the children. 
I used to believe in this assimilation 
and to write that it was being accom- 
plished. Experience, especially with 
officers and soldiers of the A. E. F., 
has taught me that I was wrong. 

If millions upon millions of Ameri- 
cans are ignorant of or indignantly re- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

ject the bases of Anglo-Saxon soli- 
darity lovingly dwelt upon by tercente- 
nary orators and writers, what are we 
going to do about it ? We cannot tell 
Hans Schmidt, Giuseppe Tommasi, 
Abram Einstein, Olaf Andersen, 
Robert Emmet O'Brien, and a dozen 
others that they are not good Ameri- 
cans because they do not cheerfully 
accept the supremacy of the Scotch 
and English among us and the superi- 
ority of Scotch and English ways. 
Nothing could be better fitted to 
arouse within them a fierce determina- 
tion to resist assimilation and oppose 
the policy of Anglo-Saxon solidarity. 
Here is our problem. We of pure 
Anglo-Saxon stock, whose ancestors 
came to America in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, have never been 
accused of hating ourselves and being 
oblivious to our origin. We have 
overloaded the Mayflower and over- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

populated Virginia and given William 
Penn a host of intimate friends. 
From the time of Washington Irving 
we have become more and more recon- 
ciled with our British cousins, and 
have learned to build our traditions 
from long before the Revolutionary- 
War. We have become aware of our 
precious Anglo-Saxon heritage. At 
the outbreak of the World War we 
celebrated a hundred years of peace 
with Great Britain. Then we entered 
the war, and fought with the British 
against a common enemy. 

Now, after the victory, we come to 
celebrate the three hundredth anniver- 
sary of the landing of the Pilgrims. 
We are more than ever glad of our 
blood and traditions. We are im- 
mensely proud of the British stock 
from which we sprang. How the 
deeds of the British on land and sea 
quickened our pulses as we read of 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

them! A privileged few of us saw 
and shared in them. More important 
still, during the war, there were times 
when we realized that Anglo-Saxon- 
dom was threatened with an eclipse of 
glory and influence. A thing is never 
so precious as when you are faced 
with losing it. Will any reader of this 
article ever forget the awful sensation 
that came when he read the first bulle- 
tins of the Battle of Jutland? No 
Anglo-Saxon could be indifferent 
about the outcome of the war after 
that experience. The aftermath of 
the war has not dispelled, but rather 
confirmed, the instinct of danger felt 
during the war. We say to ourselves 
that the British Empire and the 
United States must face the future to- 
gether. How are we going to create 
an irresistible public opinion in the 
United States in favor of a foreign 
policy that will embody as one of its 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

cardinal principles the fostering of 
Anglo-Saxon solidarity? What are 
the bases of Anglo-Saxon solidarity? 
I think I have proved that the ele- 
ments of our population which are not 
Anglo-Saxon do not take much stock 
in Anglo-American community of 
blood and culture and history because 
they are not bases to them. Their 
blood is not ours, their culture is dif- 
ferent, and American history gives 
them ground for antagonism to the 
British rather than sympathy with the 
British. The earlier English history 
they did not share. Other grounds 
must be sought to convince the Ameri- 
can nation that it is a part of Anglo- 
Saxondom and should work for the 
union and prosperity of Anglo-Saxon- 
dom. The only cultural basis that has 
a wider appeal than simply to one of 
several American groups is the ques- 
tion of common language. 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

English is our national language. 
But this forms a strong bond only with 
Canada, where there is a constant 
intercourse among peoples and a con- 
stant exchange of books and periodi- 
cals. It is becoming a factor in our 
relations with Australia, also, because 
Australians read widely and with 
avidity popular American literature. 
But outside of a limited circle, which 
needs no conversion to Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity, few British and Americans 
come into personal contact, and the 
reciprocal purchase of books and 
magazines and newspapers is surpris- 
ingly small. Potentially, however, 
common language is a basis of soli- 
darity. It is an asset in favor of those 
who are working to bring the English- 
speaking peoples together. 

The practicable bases of Anglo- 
Saxon solidarity, which tercentenary 
orators could present with effect to all 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

their compatriots, are common laws 
and spirit of administration of justice, 
similar development of democratic in- 
stitutions, common ideals, and com- 
mon interests. The first two are in a 
certain sense included in the third and 
fourth, and the fourth covers the first 
three. One appeals to the moral 
sense and to self-interest, and then, to 
clinch the argument, shows how ideal- 
ism is in harmony with interest, as in 
the adage, "Honesty is the best policy." 
In discussing the four bases of 
Anglo-Saxon solidarity, it must be re- 
membered that the problem involves 
the direct relations between each two 
of the members of the English-speak- 
ing group of nations and between each 
English-speaking country and the 
colonies and possessions of the British 
Empire and the United States. The 
following table shows how wide a field 
Anglo-Saxon solidarity covers : 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Great Britain and United States 
Great Britain and Ireland 
Ireland and United States 
Great Britain and Canada 
United States and Canada 
Ireland and Canada 
Great Britain and Australia 
United States and Australia 
Ireland and Australia 
Canada and Australia 
Great Britain and New Zealand 
United States and New Zealand 
Ireland and New Zealand 
Canada and New Zealand 
Australia and New Zealand 
Great Britain and South Africa 
United States and South Africa 
Ireland and South Africa 
Canada and South Africa 
Australia and South Africa 
New Zealand and South Africa 
Great Britain and India and other 

possessions 
United States and British possessions 
Ireland and British possessions 
Canada and British possessions 
Australia and British possessions 
New Zealand and British possessions 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

South Africa and British possessions 
United States and her possessions 
Great Britain and American possessions 
Ireland and American possessions 
Canada and American possessions 
Australia and American possessions 
New Zealand and American possessions 
South Africa and American possessions 
British possessions and American pos- 
sessions 

Thirty-six separate headings may 
seem on first glance useless repetition. 
But I ask my readers simply to take 
each heading, think for a minute, and 
there will arise in your mind some 
problem of Anglo-Saxon solidarity in- 
volving primarily the two parties 
coupled in each of the thirty-six head- 
ings. In fact, it is not difficult to find 
several sources of friction calling for 
adjustment under a single head. I 
have not space to enumerate. Nor 
have I increased the list by adding the 
new headings that might be justified 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

by the new responsibilities of the 
British Empire through the acquisition 
— in complicated form because of di- 
vision with self-governing dominions 
and the as yet unsettled limitations of 
mandates — of the former German 
colonies. 

The years immediately ahead are 
years of great peril for Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity. The problems we must 
face and solve go so far beyond the 
matters dealt with by tercentenary 
orators that one feels the crying need 
of light and more light in considering 
the quadrangular character of rela- 
tions between the different parts of 
Anglo-Saxondom — Great Britain, self- 
governing dominions, the United 
States, and the possessions and pro- 
tectorates British and American. 
Japan? The Pacific? Tariffs and 
shipping? Sea-power? Status of the 
Near East and the German colonies? 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Panama Canal? Monroe Doctrine? 
League of Nations? Ireland? We 
cannot treat these matters only as 
questions between London and Wash- 
ington affecting Anglo-American re- 
lations. Nor can Great Britain treat 
them that way. Both London and 
Washington are forced to take into 
consideration the self-governing do- 
minions of the British Empire whose 
sentiments and interests give them a 
distinct point of view and program of 
their own. With the exception of 
South Africa, the self-governing do- 
minions are, like the United States, the 
outgrowth of transplanted Anglo- 
Saxon civilization. It is natural that 
in mentality, and frequently in inter- 
ests, they should be nearer us than the 
mother country. Canada and South 
Africa have important Caucasian ele- 
ments that have not been under the 
influence of, and are antipathetic to, 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Anglo-Saxon culture. Australia's Irish 
rival ours in singing the hymn of hate 
against England. 

The first basis of Anglo-Saxon soli- 
darity is to create throughout Anglo- 
Saxondom the consciousness of unity 
in our conception of law and in the 
spirit of our administration of law. 
Just laws justly administered are the 
foundation of civilized society. Those 
who live under them prize them more 
highly than any other possession. No 
alien, whatever his origin, who comes 
to live under our dispensation fails to 
acknowledge the blessings of Anglo- 
Saxon law. Our laws and our courts 
are the outgrowth of centuries of Eng- 
lish history and experience. They 
offer the greatest protection to the in- 
dividual man and the widest possibility 
of individual freedom the world has 
ever known. Within recent years, if 
America meant to the immigrant "the 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

home of the free," it was because of 
the scrupulous administration of jus- 
tice according to the laws handed 
down to us by our Anglo-Saxon fore- 
bears. Similarly, the immigrant of 
continental European origin who went 
to a British colony was sure of a 
"square deal." Before the law he was 
the equal of any other man. Enter- 
ing our society, he shared immediately 
the benefits of our most sacred heri- 
tage — free speech, free assembly, the 
habeas corpus act, and the principles 
of Anglo-Saxon law assured to Ameri- 
cans not only by custom and our 
system of jurisprudence, but by the 
first amendments to the Constitution. 
As far as laws and the administration 
of justice are concerned, the English- 
speaking countries have had a similar 
development, and have not severed this 
powerful link binding them to England 
more closely than common language. 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

If we can impress upon our fellow- 
citizens in the United States and 
Canada and South Africa and Ireland 
who are not of Anglo-Saxon origin or 
who have grown away from Anglo- 
Saxondom that throughout the Eng- 
lish-speaking world we are maintain- 
ing the reign of English law and 
guarding jealously the constitutional 
liberties handed down to us from Eng- 
land, this precious basis of Anglo- 
Saxon solidarity will appeal to them, 
and they will help us to strengthen it. 
But there never has been a time in this 
country when the enemies of our 
Anglo-Saxon liberties have been so 
strong and so persistent. The cause 
of Anglo-Saxon solidarity is menaced 
by assaults from within. Public 
officials of the mentality of Attorney- 
General Palmer despise the Anglo- 
Saxon system of law and repudiate the 
traditions and customs of centuries. 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Political institutions and jurispru- 
dence go together. Although the 
American commonwealth has de- 
veloped its political institutions with 
less strict adherence to English stand- 
ards than in the case of jurisprudence, 
our modifications do not affect the 
spirit of what we have received, and 
the changes are only in detail. Repre- 
sentative government we received 
from England. When we fought the 
mother country it was to preserve our 
rights as Englishmen, which we did 
not believe had been forfeited by trans- 
plantation. The American War of In- 
dependence was a struggle to estab- 
lish a principle that has been vital in 
the development of English-speaking 
countries. Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand, and South Africa owe to us 
the possession of Anglo-Saxon liber- 
ties in new worlds without having had 
to fight for them. During the recent 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

war British propagandists in the 
United States made much of the argu- 
ment that the British Empire was 
fighting to secure the triumph of 
Anglo-Saxon polity against a different 
system that was both reactionary and 
aggressive, that Americans were as 
much interested as British in defend- 
ing Anglo-Saxon polity, and that 
therefore the British Empire was fight- 
ing our battle. The argument was 
sound. It appealed to thoughtful men 
in the United States, and I believe his- 
tory will show that our slogan when 
we did enter the war, "To make the 
world safe for democracy," was not a 
vain one. 

The continental European who emi- 
grates to white men's countries under 
the Anglo-Saxon form of government 
becomes, after naturalization, an equal 
partner with every other citizen. He 
votes. He is eligible for office. No 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

argument is necessary to convince him 
of the advantages of living under 
Anglo-Saxon political institutions. If 
these institutions are properly adminis- 
tered, he appreciates them as highly as 
he appreciates Anglo-Saxon jurispru- 
dence. A basis of Anglo-Saxon soli- 
darity that we can urge upon Ameri- 
cans who are deaf to the call of blood 
and culture is Anglo-Saxon polity. 
Every inhabitant of Anglo-Saxondom 
is interested in the maintenance and 
defense of the jurisprudence and 
polity under which he lives. Point out 
to him that English-speaking countries 
cannot afford to risk these precious 
possessions by being enemies and by 
pursuing antagonistic policies in this 
electrically charged post helium world, 
and he will begin to see the common 
sense of a policy of rapprochement 
between Great Britain, her dominions, 
and ourselves. 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

The most powerful appeal to the 
heart of the United States is the moral 
appeal. This is true of every other 
Anglo-Saxon country. If we needed 
proof, the recent war gave it. Great 
Britain was hardly less slow than the 
United States in getting her soul into 
the war. Whatever German polemi- 
cists may have said in their hymns of 
hate, there was no English conspiracy 
against their commerce, and Great 
Britain did not enter the war — I am 
speaking of the national consciousness 
of her people — to crush a trade rival. 
Without the invasion of Belgium, the 
cabinet would have had difficulty in 
getting Parliament to declare war. 
Without the constant effort to arouse 
and maintain the people in a state of 
moral indignation, which was never re- 
laxed during the four years of fight- 
ing, the people of the British Empire 
would not have furnished millions of 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

soldiers. We Anglo-Saxons are in- 
stinctively anti-militaristic, and we 
loathe war. We accept the burden of 
war only as a last resort, when we are 
driven to it. In a certain sense the 
United States was kicked into the war. 
We could not stand Germany pulling 
our nose and slapping our face any 
longer. But after we entered, the re- 
markable effort in manpower and 
money made by this nation was due 
not to spontaneous combustion, but to 
the clever propaganda of various 
official and unofficial organizations, 
ably assisted by a large element of the 
press. 

If the call of blood and culture, as 
some tercentenary orators claim, en- 
listed us in the war, why were we deaf 
to it for three years? I am afraid 
that our passivity from 1914 to 1917 
flatly contradicts the eloquent asser- 
tions made over loving-cups at Pil- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

grim banquets. The United States as 
a whole does not possess an Anglo- 
Saxon racial or cultural consciousness. 
But, despite our mixture of blood and 
cultural background, successive gen- 
erations of development under Anglo- 
Saxon jurisprudence and polity have 
given us an idealism that is distinc- 
tively Anglo-Saxon. It was slow to 
awaken, but when it did awake, the 
people of this country, irrespective of 
origin, went into the war for the 
triumph of the ideals embodied by 
President Wilson in his war speeches. 
We believe that these were the ideals 
of our allies, for their statesmen had 
been telling us the principles for which 
the Entente was fighting ever since 
August 1, 1914. 

But when the statesmen of the peace 
conference refused to abide by the 
principles proclaimed during the war, 
and upon the basis of which the armis- 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

tice was concluded, they made impos- 
sible America's participation in the 
treaties. At Manchester, in Decem- 
ber, 1918, President Wilson declared 
that the United States would never 
enter into any league that was not an 
association of all nations for the com- 
mon good. How could it be other- 
wise? A formidable number of mil- 
lions of Americans who fought Ger- 
many without hesitation because Ger- 
many stood for militarism and autoc- 
racy and imperialism do not believe 
they are called upon to sanction and 
enforce a sordid materialistic peace 
that makes some races masters of 
others. For the sake of idealism and 
for the United States they fought 
against kith and kin, or alongside of 
those they believed, rightly or wrongly, 
to be the oppressors of their race. 
But can we expect our compatriots of 
German or Irish or Slavic origin to 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

support a European and world order 
based upon the permanent inferiority 
and subjection of the races from which 
they sprang ? 

Some unthinking Americans hotly 
answer in the affirmative, and revive 
the epithet of hyphenate. But in do- 
ing so, they reveal themselves to be 
very poor Anglo-Saxons. A sense of 
justice and an ability to put oneself in 
the other man's place are the Anglo- 
Saxon qualities par excellence. Be- 
ing of pure British blood myself, I 
cannot help looking with contempt 
upon parvenus who are plus royalistes 
que le roi. The American of German 
or Irish origin who speaks and works 
for Anglo-Saxon race supremacy is a 
strange creature. "If I forget thee, O 
Jerusalem" is sacred to the decent- 
minded man. The pride I have in my 
ancestry and the sense of partnership 
I feel in the history of my race enable 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

me to respect others for thinking of 
Germany and Ireland as I think of 
England. Insisting that they foul 
their own nests is a poor test for re- 
cruits to Anglo-Saxon solidarity. 
Americans who maintain that it is our 
duty as good citizens of the United 
States to work for, or at least not to 
speak against, the material advance- 
ment of Great Britain because of kin- 
ship are appealing to a racial group 
and are as guilty of hyphenism as the 
propagandists of any other racial 
group. The reader interrupts me with 
the protest:, "But you cannot put our 
comrade in arms, Great Britain, whose 
language and civilization we share, in 
the same position toward American 
citizens as Germany, our recent en- 
emy!" Precisely so. I agree. But 
why? The blood argument I accept, 
but nearly fifty million Americans re- 
ject it. We must make the distinction 
one of ideals. 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Our third basis of Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity is, then, harmony of ideals 
among the nations of the English- 
speaking world. Great Britain is 
drawn to us, the self-governing do- 
minions are drawn to us, and we are 
drawn to Great Britain and the self- 
governing dominions because we have 
common ideals. And there will be no 
rapprochement unless this is so. Con- 
sequently, if we are honestly working 
for Anglo-Saxon solidarity and not 
simply setting forth sugared "pap" for 
public consumption, we shall on both 
sides tackle courageously shortcomings 
in following ideals not because we love 
to criticize, but because this is the only 
way we can remove sources of friction 
that threaten to disrupt Anglo-Saxon 
solidarity. In regard to Germany, 
Great Britain has acted admirably, and 
is living up to her ideals of fair play 
and of not kicking the other fellow 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

when he is down. In regard to Ire- 
land, on the other hand, we have a 
question that must be settled before 
genuine good feeling is established 
among the Anglo-Saxon states. 
Speaking for Ireland and not against 
her is the highest wisdom for the 
Anglo-Saxon propagandist in the 
United States. It proves that he him- 
self believes in the Anglo-Saxon heri- 
tage of which he boasts, and that he 
is anxious to remove one of the 
greatest obstacles to Anglo-American 
friendship. 

We are not going to get anywhere in 
our propaganda for Anglo-Saxon soli- 
darity unless we emphasize the com- 
mon idealism and strive to make the 
association of Anglo-Saxon nations a 
committee for giving Anglo-Saxon 
liberties to the whole world. This 
thought came to me with peculiar 
force when I stood on the spot in the 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

Moses Taylor Pyne estate where are 
buried those who fell in the Battle of 
Princeton. On a bronze tablet are in- 
scribed the words of Alfred Noyes : 

Here freedom stood by slaughtered friend 

and foe, 
And, ere the wrath paled, or that sunset 

died, 
Looked through the ages, then, with eyes 

aglow, 
Laid them to wait that future, side by side. 

The "future, side by side" of Eng- 
lish-speaking countries can mean only 
working for the spread of freedom. 
We shall not help each other to deny 
freedom to others, and if we did join 
in an Anglo-Saxon freebooting ex- 
pedition across the world, we should 
quickly follow the law of pirates and 
be at each other's throats. 

A poet might have ended his plea 
for Anglo-Saxon solidarity here. An 
orator certainly would. But, as I am 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

in earnest and want my argument to 
remain with the reader, I must not 
leave it incomplete. Among the bases 
of Anglo-Saxon solidarity, as in any 
human association, interest is the cor- 
nerstone. Men cooperate in no under- 
taking in which the element of mutual 
advantage does not play the pre- 
ponderant role. Other factors are 
present, of course, and mutual interest 
may not be the exciting cause of enter- 
ing into a common undertaking. But 
interest is the cement as well as the 
foundation of human society. If I 
were strictly logical, the three bases of 
Anglo-Saxon solidarity already sug- 
gested ought to be made sub-divisions 
of the basis I call common interests. 

What are these interests ? Are they 
numerous and important enough to 
justify a close union among English- 
speaking countries? What particular 
interests would have to be sacrificed in 



Anglo-Saxon Solidarity 

order to further the common interests ? 
Are the sacrifices possible? Is it 
worth while to make them? The 
World War and its aftermath make 
inevitable raising these questions. 
But those who, like myself, believe 
that the political and economic rap- 
prochement of Anglo-Saxon countries 
is a possibility that ought to be care- 
fully considered, will fail of appreci- 
able results unless we are willing to 
discuss moot questions frankly and 
with detachment in good old Anglo- 
Saxon fashion and unless we realize 
the composite racial and cultural char- 
acter of the American nation. 



PRINTED BY 

PAUL OVERHAGE, INC. 

NEW YORK 



% 



<<y 



> 



% -if 









% J 






.%. 








\* , . . % ' • - ° ' i 






